►
From YouTube: IETF108-PLENARY-20200729-1410
Description
PLENARY meeting session at IETF108
2020/07/29 1410
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/proceedings/
A
B
B
When
we
have
the
open
mic
sessions,
we'll
be
running
the
queue
as
normal
from
same
same
process
as
the
work
group
sessions,
please
only
send
audio
when
you're
recognized
in
the
queue
and
then
turn
it
off
when
you're
finished
and
state
your
name
and
affiliation
when
you're
recognized
and
we
strongly
recommend
a
headset.
If
you
have
one,
you
can
check
out
the
participant
meeting
guide
for
more
details
next
slide.
Please.
B
So
our
agenda
for
today
we'll
have
brief,
welcome
and
appreciation,
and
then
some
updates
from
myself
from
miriam
for
the
iab
calling
for
the
irtf
barbara
for
the
nom-com
and
jay
and
jason
will
provide
an
ietf
llc
update
next
slide.
Please
and
then
we'll
have
the
three
open
microphone
sessions
first
for
the
administration,
llc
then
for
the
ihg
and
finally
for
the
iab
next,
so
first,
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
huge
thank
you
to
our
meeting
host
erickson.
B
Next,
I
also
wanted
to
thank
everybody.
Who's
come
together
as
a
team
to
help
make
this
meeting
happen,
and
that
includes
the
secretariat,
the
medeco
team,
the
knock
team,
the
llc
staff,
the
tools
team
and
the
folks
at
gather
dot,
town,
a
large
number
of
people
who
came
together
to
provide
us
with
the
tools
that
we
needed
in
order
to
be
able
to
meet
in
this
this
format
and
make
everything,
work
and
and
be
just
incredibly
responsive
to
the
many
corner
cases
and
detailed
needs
that
our
community
has.
B
B
B
C
B
Okay,
sorry,
I
was
just
silently
had
my
audio
and
video
revoked,
so
so
for
reporting
issues
in
real
time
with
respect
to
meat
echo.
Oh
thanks,
you
can
use
the
tickets
email
address
and
those
will
be
tracked
and
there's
a
there's,
a
url
on
our
on
our
reporting
page,
where
you
can
go
see
all
the
tickets
and
for
jabra
there's
the
mtd
at
ietf.org
address.
B
So
that's
like
if
you're
having
difficulty
during
the
meeting,
please
file
a
ticket
and
you
will
get
a
response
if
you,
oh,
let's
stick
on
short-term
planning
yeah.
So
if
you
have
more
longer-term
feature
requests
for
the
platform,
please
take
those
to
tools.
Discuss,
there's
already
robust
discussion
over
there
about
features
that
people
would
like
to
see
things
that
people
don't
like
and
so
on.
B
We
have
we're
planning
to
use
the
same
assessment
criteria
that
we
used
last
time
to
make
a
decision
about
whether
we
can
run
the
meeting
in
person
versus
online
and
planning
to
use
the
same
meeting
fee
structure
as
well,
but
these
are
open
for
consultation
right
now.
So
if
you
have
input
about
those
choices,
please
send
that
to
many
couches
at
ietf.org
and
we'll
take
the
feedback
in
and
adjust.
If
we
need
to-
and
many
couches
is
also
the
place
where
we're
going
to
be
gathering
feedback
about
agenda
planning
for
itf
109..
B
B
So
if
this
is
something
that
you're
interested
in
again,
if
this
is
a
place
where
you
have,
you
know
constructive
suggestions
for
what
we
should
do
or
what
the
guidelines
should
say
that
can
guide
the
isg
and
the
ietf
llc
as
we
do
the
meeting
planning,
then
please
join
the
mailing
list.
Write
a
draft
come
to
the
meeting
which
is
happening
on
on
friday,
this
friday
at
11
utc.
B
We
also
have
an
activity
going
on
where
the
current
focus
of
the
discussion
is
in
the
gen
dispatch
working
group,
and
this
relates
to
non-com
eligibility
updates
in
part
motivated
by
the
fact
that
our
current
non-com
eligibility
criteria
rely
on
in-person
meetings
and
that's
obviously
creating
difficulty.
So
we
we
put
in
sort
of
a
short-term
fix
for
this,
the
nom-com
cycle
this
year,
but
we
need
something
that
is
more
long-lasting
that
can
deal
with
the
the
2020
year,
which
is
obviously
shaping
up
to
be
quite
different
from
from
every
other
year.
B
B
B
So
what
we're
asking
is
that
by
september
18th
that
we
want
to
hear
from
buff
proponents
in
the
ihd
would
like
to
hear
from
both
proponents.
If
you're
planning
to
propose
a
buff,
you
don't
have
to
have
your
complete
proposal
done
by
september
18th,
but
please
send
email
to
the
ihg
and
post
an
entry
in
the
buff
wiki
by
that
date.
If
you
are
even
thinking
about
proposing
a
brof
and
then
we're
going
to
take
the
two
weeks
after
that
to
have
the
ads
work
with
the
proponents
to
refine
their
proposals.
B
So
that's
a
bit
of
a
change,
and
hopefully
the
extra
time
will
help
us
have
better
buff
slate
next
time
next
slide,
please
so!
There's
more
information
covered
online
we've
had
two
appeals
in
the
last
cycle.
You
can
go
read
both
the
appeals
and
the
response
text
and
there's
lots
more
reports
from
many
of
the
other
groups
involved
in
the
ietf
that
you
can
find
in
the
meeting
materials
page
and
we
post
semi-regular,
updates
to
the
itf
blog
as
well.
C
C
Yeah,
that's
kind
of
the
same
slide,
so
one
more
yes,
so
we
already
submitted
the
ib
report
with
all
the
reporting
on
the
more
administrative
tasks
to
the
proceedings
of
this
meeting.
So
you
can
just
go
there
and
have
a
look
and
read
everything,
but
this
I
would
like
to
use
the
opportunity
to
also
cover
some
of
the
new
and
ongoing
things
we
are
doing
in
the
idea-
and
this
is
three
things:
the
iboga
meeting
we
held
yesterday
already
and
some
upcoming
program
proposal
workshop
and
a
quick
thanks
to
everybody
who
serves
as
an
appointee.
C
C
You
can
check
the
agenda
and
if
you
have
any
feedback
on
this
session,
please
send
it
directly
to
us
to
the
iab
at
ib,
ib
ib.org,
or
you
can
also
use
the
architecture,
discuss
list
for
any
public
discussion
with
the
community
and
with
us.
Of
course,
we
also
noticed,
I
believe,
generally
people
found
this
positive,
but
I'm
happy
to
hear
more
feedback
next
slide,
then
about
some
ongoing
offered
efforts.
I
would
like
to
highlight.
C
So
that's
one
thing
you
want
to
know
about
maybe-
and
the
other
thing
is
a
quick
announcement
for
a
workshop.
We
are
planning
for
november.
This
workshop
will
be
virtual
and
it's
covering
things
we
we
want
to
discuss
based
on
the
on
the
crisis.
We've
been
seeing
right
now,
where
we
see
like
this
increase
in
network
traffic.
B
E
E
The
rtf
is
organized
as
a
set
of
research
groups.
The
the
slide
lists
the
the
set
of
active
research
groups.
We
have
those
in
blue
are
meeting
this
week.
I
think
the
most
of
them
have
met
already.
Only
the
computation
in
the
network
group
is
still
to
meet,
but
do
do
look
out
for
the
meetings
and
and
please
do
participate
if
you're
not
familiar
with
the
way
the
irtf
works
and
how
it
differs
from
the
ietf.
E
E
E
This
is
an
academic
research
workshop
that
we
organize
in
conjunction
with
acm
sitcom
this
year.
It's
happening
tomorrow
and
friday,
co-located
with
with
the
itf
I'm
running,
alongside
all
the
the
the
ietf
and
irtf
meetings,
the
chairs
of
the
workshop
miria
and
roland
this
year.
They've
done
a
really
good
job,
putting
together
a
really
interesting
program.
E
E
E
B
F
F
You
know
we
did
have
a
couple
of
challenges
come
through,
which
I
have
survived.
Thankfully,
and
if
you
have
further
questions
about
that,
you
can
always
go
onto
the
ietf
list.
You
know
in
your
spare
time
and
and
when
you
just
want
to
have
a
little
fun
and
read
all
about
that,
but
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
fabulous
group
of
people,
I'm
really
thrilled
that
all
these
people
are
on
the
nom-com
this
year.
F
They
just
keep
growing,
although
I
think
it
right
now
it's
the
same
as
what
victor
had
last
year,
but
it
is
certainly
quite
a
few
and
we
are
going
to
be
starting
our
meetings
next
week
to
get
things
going
with
questionnaires
and
making
sure
we
understand
what
all
the
the
expectations
are
for
each
of
these
seats,
and
you
know
this
week
I've
been
meeting
with
people
during
nom-com
office
hours.
So
next
slide.
Please
so.
F
F
Now
the
interviews
and
the
office
hours
I'd
like
to
call
your
attention
to
those
dates.
There
are
two
weeks
set
now
for
the
nominee
interviews.
We
intend
to
spread
them
across
the
two
weeks
prior
to
ietf
109,
whatever
format
or
wherever,
however,
that
one
may
be
held,
we
will
be
holding
the
interviews.
The
two
weeks
before
we
do
realize.
One
of
those
weeks
is
a
vacation,
a
common
vacation
week
for
many
people,
but
that's
why
we
have
two
weeks
so
hopefully
that
will
meet
people's
needs.
F
Our
nom-com
members
are
from
a
wide
range
of
time
zones
themselves
and
so
we're
going
to
try
to
have
interview
slots
where
both
the
nom-com
interviewer
and
the
nominee
are
awake
at
the
same
time,
and
we
think
this
is
completely
doable
in
our
new
view
virtual
world,
and
we
expect
to
be
doing
our
interviews
by
webex
the
office,
hours
and
requests.
For
you
know
private
office
hours
during
that
period
of
time
is
going
to
actually
be
three
weeks.
F
F
F
Yes,
we
were
randomly
selected,
but
we
are
your
randomly
selected
group
of
people
and
we
really
need
to
represent
the
community
and
the
way
we
can
best
represent
the
community
as
we
if
we
hear
from
the
community
and
if
the
community
members
actually
stand-
and
you
know
even
if
you're
going
up
against
an
incumbent.
I
have
to
say
you
know
myself
that
just
the
experience
of
standing
as
a
nominee
is
incredible.
F
F
F
F
The
data
tracker
is
where
I'm
going
to
be
trying
to
keep
the
nom
com
2020
page
up
to
date,
with
information
about
what's
going
on
with
us,
the
our
schedule
is
there
all
of
the
people
are
there.
We
currently
have
one
office
hour
still
for
this
week.
I
set
three
our
first
office
hour
was
we
actually
had
several
people
come
by
and
provide
some
input
as
to
qualities
they
would
like
to
see
in
some
of
the
positions.
F
So
just
talk
to
me,
people,
okay
and
I've-
already
mentioned
about
the
109
office
hours.
So
next
slide,
I
think,
is
my
thank
you.
Oh
yeah
right.
So
let's
make
this
it's
a
special
year
already,
but
let's
try
and
put
a
positive
spin
on
it.
Let's
see
how
we
can
make
it
special
in
a
way
that
really
makes
things
better.
I
would
love
to
see
more
nominees
and
more
feedback
and
I'd
really
love
to
see
more
diversity
in
what
we
have
coming
at
us.
F
F
G
G
Firstly,
the
fee
waiver
sponsors,
google,
fastly
and
future
way,
so
thanks
to
them,
who've
enabled
us
to
pay
for
large
numbers
of
the
free
we
waivers
which
we'll
be
talking
about
in
a
minute
and
for
google
cloud
developer
relations,
who
have
sponsored
the
google
cloud
service
that
we're
using
that
meet.
Echo
is
currently
running
in
so
thank
you
to
those
of
you
as
well.
Next
slide,
please,
our
equipment
sponsors
give
extraordinary
generously
to
us,
cisco
and
juniper.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that.
G
It's
always
very
nice
to
have
new
equipment
come
every
three
years
to
maintain
things
next
slide.
Please,
and
so
there
are
two
local
sponsors
from
madrid
who
I
want
to
thank,
who
put
an
enormous
amount
of
work
in,
even
though
we
haven't
used
them
now,
the
ipv6
company
or
geordi,
as
many
of
you
know
and
cult
who
are
putting
circuits
in
for
us
and
things.
So.
Thank
you
both
very
much,
even
though
we
didn't
use
you,
you
put
a
lot
of
work
in
and
we
recognize
that
next
slide.
Please.
G
So
I'm
not
going
to
read
out
all
of
the
names,
but
I
thought
it
was
important
for
you
to
see
just
how
many
people
are
involved
in
this
both
on
the
volunteer
side
here
on
this
slide
and
not
next
slide
in
terms
of
staff
and
contractors.
So
thank
you
very
much
to
all
of
these
people.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
a
large
number
of
people
who
put
their
time
in
to
make
this
work.
Thank
you
next
slide.
G
G
G
And
finally,
I
want
to
thank
all
of
our
global
hosts
who,
so,
for
those
of
you,
don't
know
a
global
host
signs
up
to
a
multi-year
contract
with
us
six
or
nine
years.
They
give
us
money
every
year
throughout
that
and
they
host
a
number
of
meetings
as
part
of
that,
and
they
have
been
very
helpful
in
well,
we
get
enormous
amount
of
funding
from
them.
We
couldn't
run
the
meetings
without
them.
So
thank
you
to
cisco,
comcast,
nbc,
universal
ericsson,
huawei,
juniper
and
nokia.
G
So
here
are
our
future
meeting
locations
and
venues.
We
have
itf
109
coming
up
next
in
bangkok,
as
mentioned
march
next
year,
is
itf
110
in
prague,
then
san
francisco,
which
is
a
a
re-scheduled
meeting
from
previous
meeting
and
then
112
in
madrid,
which
is
where
we're
rescheduling
this
meeting
to
we're
keeping
113
open
in
case.
We
need
to
shift
bangkok
to
there
and
then
we
have
philadelphia
in
for
114,
and
if
you
are
interested
in
sponsoring
a
meeting,
then
please
contact
us
and
open
up
a
checkbook.
Fantastic
next
slide,
please.
G
So
these
are
the
registration
numbers
as
of
yesterday
when
we're
preparing
the
slides
so
they're,
not
as
up-to-date
as
the
ones
alyssa
covey
and
they're,
broken
down
by
the
type
of
ticket
that
we
have,
and
you
can
see
the
budget
that
we
have
there
as
well.
So,
for
example,
we
had
we
budgeted
for
500
early
birds
and
we
had
485
so
the
it's
roughly
within
line
with
our
budgeting.
G
Here,
we've
exceeded
the
number
of
registered
slightly
so,
which
is
very
pleasing,
but
it's
good
news
for
us
in
terms
of
the
financial
viability
of
an
online
meeting
that
has
worked
out
very
well
next
slide.
Please
now,
as
a
bit
of
transparency,
I've
put
in
here
some
details
about
the
things
that
I'm
doing
as
the
itf
executive,
director
and
you'd,
probably
guess.
G
H
So
this
is
who
we
are
for
those
of
you
that
may
not
be
familiar
with
us.
Maya,
alyssa,
shawn
peter
and
me
certainly
would
like
to
have
been
in
person
someplace,
but
such
as
it
is.
These
are
the
members
of
the
board
next
slide.
Please,
we
do
publish
well
in
advance
our
board
meeting
dates
and
you
can
find
those
on
our
website.
Of
course,
these
are
the
ones
that
are
coming
up
in
the
next
several
months.
You
can
feel
free
to
join
them
remotely.
H
We
don't
often
have
many
people
join,
so
we
would
love
to
have
more
folks
join
a
meeting
and
we
tend
to
open
up
a
little
bit
of
time
for
q
a
towards
the
end
of
the
public
session.
So
if
you
do
have
time,
please
encourage
you
to
join
if
you're
interested
in
the
other
work
that
we're
doing
next
slide
please.
H
H
There
were
no
issues,
so
basically
the
full
financial
year,
first
full
financial
year
for
the
llc
was
completed,
and
then
we
had
that
audited
by
our
new
cpa
firm,
and
it
was
great
to
get
through
that
with
no
issues
flagged
and
we
blogged
about
that.
At
the
time
we
started
to
implement
the
investment
policy
statement,
which
is
good.
We
revised,
of
course,
both
our
fiscal
year
budget
and
the
exact
exact
director
goals
based
on
code,
19
changes
and
some
other
small
work
on
procedural
changes.
H
Really.
The
next
two
bullets
are
the
key
things
for
us
for
this
year,
which
is
to
lock
in
a
long-term
financial
support
agreement
with
the
I,
with
the
internet
society
excuse
me
and
to
then
figure
out
what
our
fundraising
and
sponsorship
strategy
is.
That
would
support
that
going
forward.
So
hopefully,
we'll
have
a
lot
more
to
report
on
by
the
next
itf
meeting,
but
that's
our
key
focus
for
the
year
next
slide.
H
And
here
you
can
find
an
update
based
on
our
recent
financials,
but
given
all
the
disruptions
of
meetings
and
so
on,
it's
great
to
see
that
we
haven't
had
a
humongous
disruption
financially
and
appreciate
you
know
jay
and
his
leadership
there
to
help,
but
that's
a
big
achievement.
I
think
we
feared
much
much
worse
of
an
impact
and
I
think
we
came
out
relatively
good
at
this
point
next
slide.
H
B
I
H
G
G
So
this
is
it's
not
as
though
we've
lost
anything
by
people,
switching
to
free
waivers
or
anything
like
that,
and
it's
been
fine
to
administer
pretty
unbreathably
straightforward
and
we
haven't
done
any
form
of
checking
or
analysis
to
see.
If
anybody
has
could
have
done
something
else.
We've
just
accepted
people
on
their
word,
for
it.
H
J
G
I'll
pick
that
up
then
jason,
it's
a
good
question
jim.
So
our
our
assessment
process
is
effective
to
step
one
where
we
determine
whether
or
not
it's
viable
for
the
meeting
to
go
ahead
and
then
the
iesg
determines
whether
there
are
sufficient
numbers
for
people
to
go
ahead.
I
haven't
done
extensive
work.
J
G
H
K
K
So
even
if
it's
possible
to
go,
I
think
it
might
be
quite
challenging
to
get
travel
insurance,
which
I
think
will
be
an
issue
for
some
of
us
and
also
I've
noticed.
As
I'm
sure
you
have
that
we're
starting
to
see
some
pretty
big,
high-profile
events
for
early
next
year.
Moving
to
virtual,
you
would
have
seen
that
I'm
sure
the
notice
about
ces
in
january
going
to
be
virtual.
H
L
Know
I
I
do
love
this
meet
echo
tool,
though
really
my
question
is:
let's
assume
maybe
we
have.
We
have
uncertainty
about
different
people's
travel,
or
maybe
some
people
just
really
liked
the
really
intensive
online.
Can
we
consider?
Maybe
you
already
have
said
this,
having
a
full-on
meet-up
meet
echo
presence
that
empowers
the
remote
people,
as
well
as
in
person.
G
Yeah,
I
think
that
is
probably
tied
up
into
the
work
going
on
in
shmoo
about
what
people
want
for
online
meetings,
even
though
it's
related
to
in
person.
I'm
not
I'm,
not.
I'm
not
convinced
that
it's
sensible
for
us
in
the
llc
to
go
ahead
and
start
making
some
decisions
about
the
meeting
process
in
that
way
or
the
meeting
experience
in
that
way.
That's
something
more
for
the
isg
and
others
to
do,
and
that's
that
the
process
currently
is
to
go
through
that.
So
tweaks
and
other
things.
Yes.
J
H
Just
to
to
add
to
that
I
mean,
I
think
it's
certainly
the
case
whether
you
look
at
our
online
meeting
tools
or
other
online
collaboration
tools.
I
think
everyone's
expectations
as
a
result
of
working
remotely
from
the
pandemic
have
really
increased
quite
a
bit,
and
so
you
know
it's
important
for
us
to
step
up
our
tooling,
and
I
do
want
to
make
a
mention
here
of
the
meat
echo
team.
I
mean
that
the
work
that
they've
done
has
been
phenomenal
and
you
know
really
really
appreciate.
M
B
So
we
really
need
to
kind
of
try
to
coalesce
around
what
the
model
or
models
is
that
the
bulk
of
the
community
is
interested
in
because
in
in
the
absence
of
that,
we
just
have
to
like
make
a
guess
or
make
a
choice
one
way
or
the
other.
Without
you
know,
having
a
good
sense
of
what
the
community
wants.
B
B
F
L
B
T
B
I
Hello
there,
so
I
noticed
a
thread
on
the
ietf
list.
That's
gotten
kind
of
long.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
has
noticed
that
thread.
So
a
couple
of
quick
things.
First,
john,
I
think
made
a
comment
on
the
list
that
the
last
minute
nature
of
the
iasg
statement
was
probably
a
little
problematic
and
lesson
learned,
but
I
I
agree
that
the
timing
should
be
a
little
earlier
before.
N
I
I
B
Pete-
and
I
think
that
was
pete
resnick
for
for
people
who
couldn't
discern
if,
if
you
can
state
your
name
when
you
come
to
the
mic,
that's
that's
helpful,
so
I'll
just
give
my
own
response
and
let
other
people
chime
in.
But
from
my
perspective
I
haven't
seen
the
message
about
that.
The
statement
being
last
minute,
but
I
frankly
think
it's
like
decades
overdue.
So
I
don't
find
it
to
be
last
minute
at
all.
I
It
wasn't
a
question
of
whether
it
should
have
been
done
sooner
or
later,
but
more
that
three
days
before
the
ietf
meeting
made
it
such
that
it
sort
of
blew
up,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
other
things
going
on,
not
not
that
it
shouldn't
have
been
as
soon
as
possible.
That's
exactly
right
it.
It
is
that
it's
quite
a
bit
too
late,
but
just
that
timing,
it
right
near
the
meeting
was,
was
tricky
and
made
the
conversation
and
I
think,
iasg
involvement
in
that
conversation
harder.
That's
all.
B
Okay,
I
mean
I,
I
still.
I
feel
that
people
maybe
need
to
reread
the
statement,
because
the
first
paragraph
is
like
a
statement
of
what
the
ieg
believes,
and
I
understand
that
there's
like
lots
of
effort
to
try
to
influence
us
about
what
we
believe,
but
it's
just
a
statement
of
belief
and
if
people
wanted
to
comment
on
that,
that's
that's
you
know
their
prerogative,
but
it
wasn't
necessarily
like
inviting
us
to
comment
back.
B
It's
just
a
statement
of
our
belief
and
the
second
paragraph
talks
about
like
welcoming
you
know
further
discussion
in
the
community
in
the
you
know,
in
the
structured
way
that
we
have
it
towards
the
draft
and
gen
dispatch.
So
I
can
appreciate
that
there's
nothing
that
we
can
do
to
prevent
people
from
starting
a
threat
on
ietf
at
itf.
But
if
you
actually
read
the
words
in
the
statement,
I
think
they
tell
you
something
different
from
from
what
people
have
been
reading
into
them
warren.
B
B
K
I
would
apologize,
but
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
point
that
pete
made
the
timing
of
pushing
out
that
statement.
Just
literally
just
a
handful
of
days
before
an
ietf
meeting
was
especially
unhelpful,
given
it
was
quite
predictable.
The
volume
of
responses
it
generated,
which
meant
that
the
volume
of
noise
coming
from
the
various
main
lists
quickly
became
unmanageable.
K
K
U
P
Yeah,
there's
a
dabber
scribe.
There's
a
couple
of
there's
two
questions
I
see
in
the
in
the
chat
room.
The
most
recent
one
is
the
rfc
editor
has
a
long
backlog
who
will
fix
that
and
there
was
a
previous
one
that
I've
lost
in
the
chat.
But
it
was
a
question
about
the
nom-com.
Are
all
the
incumbents
running
again.
P
Some
of
us
have
declared
whether
we'll
be
standing
again
or
not,
and
the
nom-com
chair
will
announce
that
with
the
solicitation
of
volunteers,
sometimes
people
sometimes
incumbents
decide
after
people
have
started
to
put
their
names
in,
but
generally
the
namcom
chair
lets
the
community
know
as
soon
as
the
the
incumbents
have
declared
whether
they'll
be
standing
again
and
I'll
say.
For
me.
I
do
not
intend
to
stand
for
art
a.d
again
and
I
hope
the
art
area
will
put
forth
a
number
of
good
candidates,
including
the
ones
who
stood
last.
B
Time,
thanks
barry
so
to
the
first
question:
there's
a
few
compounding
factors
that
have
affected
the
the
length
of
the
rfc
editor's
queue.
The
main
one
that's
still
in
play
right
now
is
something
called
cluster
238,
which
is
the
group
of
40
or
so
documents
that
are
defining
the
webrtc
protocol
suite
and
have
a
web
of
interdependencies
that
have
caused
them
to
all
hit.
The
publication
queue
at
once
so
about
half
of
those
are
finished
with
off
48
and
about
half
of
them
still
need
to
complete
off
48.
B
So
hopefully,
when
that
cluster
is
done
well,
certainly
like
the
length
of
the
queue
in
terms
of
the
number
of
documents
will
be
dramatically
shortened
when
all
of
those
are
finished,
I
think
optimistically
within
by
the
end
of
the
year,
let's
say
so.
That
will
be
a
significant
help.
The
other
thing,
that's
you
know,
ongoing.
B
That's
affecting
the
the
time
in
queue
is
the
transition
to
the
v3
rfc
format
which
which
started
in
october
of
last
year,
and
I
think
the
bulk
of
the
issues
that
surfaced
with
the
transition
have
been
ironed
out.
But
I
think
if
john
levine
is
with
us,
he
can
he
can
give
more
of
an
update
when
the
iab
comes
on,
but
we're
getting
to
the
place
where
we
at
least
know
the
the
length
of
time
that
editing
a
v3
page
of
a
document
takes.
B
W
Okay,
sorry
I'd
like
to
recommend
that
draft
authors
run
their
text
through
a
tool
like
grammarly
or
hemingway
or
pro
writing
aid
to
get
it
in
pretty
good
shape,
while
it's
being
reviewed
so
that
way,
the
poor
rfc
editor
won't
have
to.
You
know,
go
crazy
with
grammatical
stuff
that
could
have
been
taken
care
of
by
a
piece
of
software,
and
it
might
even
be
a
good
idea
if
the
iesg
would
recommend
some
tools
that
get
to
a
style
that
they
like
to
see.
F
Well,
maybe
it
would
help
if
I
put
my
microphone
in
front
of
my
mouth.
Thank
you
alyssa.
So,
as
the
nom-com
chair,
I
would
just
like
to
you
know,
encourage
that
independent
of
whether
any
of
these
wonderful
people
will
be
running
again
for
the
iesg.
I
would
love
to
see
people
running
against
them.
Competition
in
things
like
this
is
really
a
good
thing.
X
Yes,
I'm
jabber
driving
for
kathleen
who
asks,
if
anything
is
being
done
to
increase
the
rate
of
output
for
the
iesgq
for
publication.
She
asked
80
review
expectations,
understanding
that
holding
documents
up
holds
up
real
work,
progress,
etc,
and
I
guess
john
also
said
that
some
of
the
rfc
editor
questions
will
happen
in
the
ieb
part.
That
was
asked.
O
Yeah,
so
I
I
know
that,
at
least
for
me,
the
queue
of
documents
for
ad
review
is
getting
pretty
long
and
we
have
been
trying
to
do
some
things
to
speed
that
up.
I
was
able
to
request
that
my
isg
colleagues
take
over
a
few
of
the
documents
that
were
sent
to
me
pretty
shortly
after
they
were
sent
to
me
to
sort
of
short
circuit,
my
very
long
queue
and
get
it
to
someone
who
could
handle
it.
A
lot
quicker
that
seems
to
have
been
pretty
effective.
O
So
I
think
we're
going
to
keep
in
mind
the
ability
to
do
that
in
the
future.
We
have
a
standing
item
on
our
informal
chats
to
ask
if
there's
any
documents
that
we
should
switch
around,
and
you
know
again
speaking
only
for
myself,
I
expect
to
be
making
better
progress
with
my
own
cue
in
the
coming
months.
P
But
it's
really
helpful
for
the
document
shepard's
to
keep
up
on
this
also
and
if
we
are
not
responding
quickly
enough,
that's
part
of
what
the
document
shepards
are
supposed
to
be
doing
is
ping
us
and
ask
what
the
delay
is.
If
there's
anything
you
can
do
to
help
us,
and
sometimes
just
the
reminder,
is
what
we
need
to
push
it
up
in
our
queue
and
and
get
it
going.
S
Right
hold
on
oh
yeah.
I
just
want
to
get
a
second.
What
terry
said?
It's
also
you
know
if
you're
a
draft
author,
please
make
sure
to
actually
integrate
comments.
When
you
get
comments
back
and
also,
if
you're
not
getting
a
response,
make
sure
you
just
ping
the
id
you
know.
Often
you
end
up
with
huge
numbers
of
emails
in
your
email
box
and
you
might
miss
one.
S
V
You're
muted,
but
I'm
going
to
assume
that
it's
working
david
kanazzi
google,
just
on
the
topic
of
lengthy
reviews
with
the
isg,
I
would
just
like
to
offer
a
suggestion
for
isg
members.
We
have
I've
had
experience
with
a
bunch
of
documents
where
we've
gotten
like
very
long
and
thorough
review
from
the
isg,
which
is
great
and
helpful,
but
I'm
thinking-
maybe
it
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
ihg
to
spend
so
much
time
on
editorial
comments
on
documents.
V
In
particular,
I've
had
instances
where
one
ad
made
edit
ver,
like
acknowledged
editorial
comments.
I
made
the
changes
and
then
another
ad
submit
editorial
comments
that
directly
contradicted
those
changes.
All
that
to
say,
I
think
there
is
value
in
having
the
isg.
You
know,
review
the
documents
and
make
sure,
like
you
know,
for
example,
it
has
valid
security,
but
let's
maybe
shorten
the
reviews
and
not
like
nitpick
everything
editorially.
We
have
the
rfc
editor
that
can
do
this.
Just
a.
V
O
I
do
want
to
reiterate
that
you
know
the
isg
ballots
have
a
comment
section
which
is
usually
present
on
most
of
the
things
you
get
email
about.
There's
also
sometimes
the
discuss
section,
of
course,
which
has
the
blocking
comments,
but
the
comment
section
on
the
ballot
is
explicitly
non-blocking
comments
and
by
putting
remarks
in
there
we're
sort
of
saying
we
are
okay.
S
Yeah,
this
is
warren,
I
mean,
ideally,
things
like
editorial
nets
would
be
caught
in
working
group,
last
call
or
atf
last
call
or
before
it
hits
the
isg,
but
you
know
I
know
that
my
adhd
ocd
won't
really.
Let
me
just
ignore
a
bunch
of
typos
editorial
things
without
mentioning
them,
but,
as
ben
said
you
know,
most
of
them
do
just
end
up
in
the
comments
section
unless
it's
something
which
is
a
significant
enough
issue
to
be
a
discuss.
S
There
is
also
the
fact
that
the
rfc
editor
has
a
lot
of
work
to
do
and
there's
a
definite
cost
with
it.
If
we
can
make
the
document
not
have
27
typos
before
it
hits
them,
I
think
that
that's
always
helpful
all
right,
that's
not
actually
what
exactly
we're
talking
about,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
documents
that
show
up
just
with
monster
big
typos
or
you
know
basically
unreadable
sorry,
I'm
sounding.
B
Q
So
david,
I
just
wanted
to
acknowledge.
Absolutely
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
we,
as
the
isg
can
do
better.
A
better
job
on
is
making
sure
that
we
don't
duplicate
feedback,
whether
it
comes
in
discuss
form
or
in
comments,
if
there's
nothing
new
to
add
so
this
is,
I
think,
an
artifact
that
different
isu
members
have
different
workflows
about
whether
they
read
other
people's
comments,
then
they
provide
theirs
or
where
their
starting
point
is.
But
we
can
try
harder
at
that.
That's
fair.
Q
D
Hear
me
yeah:
yes,
the
little
bars
are
moving
mark
nottingham.
So
I
want
to
follow
on
to
the
to
the
last
discussion
ben.
You
said
you
talked
to
the
rfc
editor.
I'd,
encourage
you
to
talk
to
authors,
the
experience
of
an
author,
putting
it
a
document
together
going
through
working
group.
Last
call
then
going
through
ietf.
Last
call
then
going
through
the
rfc.
D
Editor
is
onerous,
especially
for
new
authors
and
when
they
get
a
tremendous
amount
of
very
detailed
feedback
from
the
isg
about
grammatical
issues,
and
sometimes
it
conflicts
or
conflicts
with
what
the
rfc
editor
says.
I've
seen
that
happen,
and
then
they
have
to
go
through
the
same
process
with
the
rfc
editor.
D
It's
not
really
a
great
experience,
especially
when
the
feedback
comes
in
a
huge
slab
of
an
email
where
you
have
to
go
and
find
the
right
part
of
the
document
to
edit
and
then
affect
that
edit
and
then
go
through
the
whole
thing,
at
least
with
the
rfc
editor,
it's
much
more
automated
and
they
do
the
work
for
you.
I'd
really
encourage
you
to
think
about
what
the
editor
experi
experience
is
here,
especially
since
so
many
working
groups
are
using
more
modern
tools
like
github
and
you
could
give
them
a
pull
request.
D
And
and
the
statement
that
you
know
comments
can
be
ignored.
Yes,
we
I've
heard
that
said
a
number
of
times.
I've
been
working
in
the
itf
now
for
20
years
and
I
still
don't
feel
like.
I
cannot
ignore
comments
from
an
aed
it
just
to
a
new
author
that
just
won't
even
enter
their
mind.
So
I'd
really
encourage
the
isg
to
think
about
how
the
time
spent
here,
if
we're
really
doing
this
to
save
time
and
money
from
the
rfc
editor,
then
there's
something
really
broken
going
on
and
I
hope
that's
not.
The
motivation.
O
O
O
It's
not
really
an
attempt
to
save
the
money
or
time
from
the
rpc
staff.
It's
more
that
I
have
this
problem
where
I
notice
things
and
by
the
time
I've
noticed
the
thing
and
gotten
past
it,
while
I'm
just
reading
for
my
own
comprehension,
the
incremental
time
to
note
it
and
get
it
fixed
is
not
very
much
for
me,
but
I
will
definitely
try
and
consider
the
effect
on
the
authors
in
the
future.
S
Yeah
this
is
warren.
I
guess
I'll
largely
just
follow
him
from
what
part
ben
said.
Once
I've
noticed
in
it,
it's
really
really
hard
not
to
not
to
comment
on
it
and
just
leave
it
live,
but
also
you
might
be
making
a
generalization
there
mark.
I
recently
published
a
document
and
I
got
a
bunch
of
editorial
comments
back
during
isg
review
and
I
thought
they
were
really
helpful
and
friendly.
S
You
know
I
went
through,
I
integrated
them
almost
always
there's
other
stuff
one
has
to
integrate
after
the
iesg
review,
and
so,
while
I
had
the
document
open
going
through
and
fixing
the
typos
that
I
accidentally
left
in
changing
things
like
dns
revolver
to
dns
resolver,
I
think
was
really
helpful
and
it's
the
sort
of
thing
that
the
rfc
editor
might
miss.
I'd
rather
fix
things
like
that.
While
I've
got
the
document
open
then
end
up
having
narata
because
of
a
typo.
Y
We
used
to
view
the
isg
catching
problems
which
survived
working
groups
and
last
calls
and
now
document
shepherds
in
between
working
groups.
Last
calls
when
something
got
that
far
and
no
comments
were
raised
and
the
isg
hadn't
noticed
them.
We
treat
it
as
a
process.
Failure
not
something
to
scream
at
somebody
about,
but
something
to
think
about
what
could
have
been
done
differently,
which
would
have
prevented
the
isg
from
needing
to
catch
and
deal
with
those
comments.
Y
Y
A
re-examination
of
what
caused
the
document
to
get
to
the
isg
in
the
shape
in
which
the
isg
feels
like
they
need
to
make
a
serious
protest.
And
that
applies
equally
well
to
editorial
issues,
to
language
which
we
no
longer
approve
of
and
should
not
have
approved
of
20
years
ago,
or
whether
it's
a
technical
problem.
Just
just
a
suggestion
for
you
to
collectively
to
think
about.
A
Z
Z
Z
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
the
isg
to
start
thinking
about
how,
in
future
virtual
meetings
were,
you
know
managing
the
time
there
right
now
it
was
starting
from
starts
on
the
clock,
ends
on
the
clock
and
then
basically,
people
started
to
argue
for
five
more
minutes,
and
I
think
I'm
I'm
voting
on
the
side
of
having
a
lot
more
leeway
on
that.
That
working
group
chairs
can
ask
you
know
if
people
can
stay
over.
Z
I
mean
it's
not
as
if
the
next
working
group
rushes
in
but
attendees
can
easily
say
no,
we've
got
a
conflict
or
we
don't
have
a
conflict
right.
So
I
think
we
have
a
lot
more
flexibility
nowadays,
but
we're
actually
in
the
tooling
side,
rather
going
the
opposite
way.
So
would
be
great
if,
if
I
isg
could
get
involved,
given
how
it's
probably
good
part
of
your
responsibility
to
manage
that.
B
Yeah
thanks.
I
agree.
I
think
this
is
a
place.
We
can
make
a
lot
of
improvement.
I
do
think
you
know
having
the
the
start
times
fairly.
Strict
is
important
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
everybody
who
wants
to
get
to
a
session
can
get
to
it.
So
I
don't
think
we
want
the
sessions
to
bleed
into
each
other.
Even
if
there's
you
know
a
core
group
who
can
keep
talking,
that's
a
little
bit
exclusionary
towards
people
who
have
another
commitment,
but
yeah.
B
Z
B
B
B
AA
AB
All
right,
so
so
at
the
in
the
in-person
meetings,
our
meetings
have
always
been
in.
You
know,
quanta
of
half
hour
so
hour
hour
and
a
half
two
hours
we've
in
this
meeting.
It
was
50
50
minutes
or
100
minutes
instead,
and
I
feel
like
especially
given
the
friction
of
av
troubles.
That's
a
little
tight.
My
group
didn't
need
a
full.
AB
You
know
wouldn't
need
a
full
hour
and
a
half,
so
I
thought
well,
I
guess
I'll
have
to
do
50
minutes,
but
it's
turned
out
to
be
sort
of
tight
for
me.
So
I
think
that
going
forward,
assuming
we're
still
going
to
do
virtual
half
hour
quanta
in
my
opinion,
rather
than
25
minute
quanto,
would
work
better,
just
as
a
my
personal
opinion,
so.
B
P
B
O
O
Y
Y
If
an
ietf
last
call
is
meaningful,
then
people
should
be
reading
these
documents.
During
last
call
and
raising
these
terminology
objections
long
before
it
falls
on
the
isg
to
notice
these
things
sort
them
out.
So
I
I
think
we're
we're
putting
too
much
responsibility
in
the
isg,
which
is
making
things
too
burdensome
and
is
best
increasing
the
stress
on
authors
relative
to
catching
these
things
earlier
and
dealing
with
during
the
normal
course
of
document
development.
O
Y
Y
I
think
we
we
are
taking
the
whole
community
is
taking
a
ietf
last
call
much
less
seriously
than
we
did
even
a
decade
ago.
Much
was
a
decade
or
two
and
a
half
and-
and
I
think
we
need
to
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
ameliorate
that
and
if
the
community
doesn't
care
enough
about
a
document
to
carefully
review
it,
then
we
don't
have
ietf
consensus
for
that
document,
no
matter
what
iesg
reviews
or
other
rituals
we
go
to,
and
we
really
need
to
start
taking
that
problem
seriously.
O
Y
P
P
Up
or
whether
you
called
on
me-
but
here
I
am
anyway,
this
is
barry
liba,
john,
the
back
when
dinosaurs
roamed,
the
internet.
We
had
people
who
were
we,
we
had
many
fewer
documents
going
into
last
call.
We
had
people
who
were
more
broadly
scoped,
more
people
who
were
more
broadly
scoped.
We
have
a
much
more
focused
group
of
people
now
and
I
think
it
has
been
difficult
to
get
a
lot
of
last
call
comments.
P
P
We
hope
that
most
of
the
work
will
be
done
in
the
working
groups
and
that
last
call
will
surface
a
relatively
small
number
of
comments
that
gives
us
the
cross
area
review,
but
it
is
a
very
difficult
problem
and
I
I'd
love
to
see
much
more
interaction,
much
more
engagement
in
the
community
with
last
call.
So
I
agree
with
that
part.
S
S
Maybe
we
need
to
change
our
world
view
so,
instead
of
it's
not
there's
consensus
when
you've
addressed
all
of
the
outstanding
comments
and
everybody's
know,
you
know
everybody
stopped
complaining
to.
We
need
much
stronger
shows
of
support
from
a
working
group
before
the
chairs
are
sort
of
willing
to
send
the
document
forward
and
more.
You
know
a
lack
of
comments
in
ietf
last
call
does
not
mean
that
there's
consensus,
it
either
means
that
nobody's
read
the
document,
or
maybe
everybody
fully
agrees,
but
that
seems
unlikely.
S
B
AC
Thanks
the
techo
meetings
have
been
going
really
well,
and
I've
been
really
impressed
with
them.
Just
a
quick
question
about
the
the
virtual
hum:
is
there
like
a
minimum
number
of
people
that
need
to
participate
or
minimum
volume
or
and
also
how
are
people
finding
it
in
general,
because
I've
there's
been
a
couple
where
people
are
not
quite
sure
what
to
do.
R
R
R
B
Nientee,
okay,
I
think
we
lost
martin
and
perhaps
what
he
was
saying
is
that
there
there's
no
hums
it
will
show
up
as
niente.
So
there's
you
know,
there's
a
bucket
that
captures
very
low
or
no
humming,
and
if
you
have
feedback
about
the
tool,
please
send
it
to
tools
discuss
at
ietf.
That's
where
we're
having
discussion
about
it
and
I
think
opinions
vary.
So
please
bring
yours
to
the
tools
discussion
list
and
we
will
move
on
to
tourists.
Z
There
was
a
with
with
respect
to
the
last
call
right,
I
think.
Maybe
it's
also
an
issue
of
the
document
shepard's
and
the
working
group
chairs
may
be
trying
to
initiate
before
the
end
of
the
last
call
cross.
You
know
reviewing
wherever
there
might
be
filling
of
the
most
useful
additional
feedback
or
even
earlier
than
the
last
call,
and
I
think
maybe
that
needs
to
be
exercised
more
from
my
own
experience,
and
I
I
think
I'm
too
blamed
there
as
well,
not
doing
that
enough.
S
I
kind
of
wanted
respond,
but
discussions
in
the
jabber.
I
think
that
one
of
the
problems
is
that
there
are
authors
who
push
really
strongly
for
their
document
to
go
to
working
group
last
call
and
the
chairs
are
willing
to
push
back
for
a
while.
But
after
you
know,
five
or
six
or
seven
times,
but
my
document's
ready
for
working
group
last
call
nobody's
read
it,
but
my
document's
ready
for
working
group
last
call
nobody's
read
it
eventually.
S
It
just
becomes
easier
for
the
working
group
chairs
to
say:
okay,
whatever,
let's
just
push
this
up
to
the
isg,
and
I
don't
really
know
how
we
can
fight
that.
I
in
chairs
of
volunteers,
at
some
point
after
they've,
been
shouted
at
enough
times
by
authors.
It
just
becomes
easier
to
say
all
right.
Whatever
you
know,
I
will
kick
this
up
to
someone
else
and
make
it
their
problem.
S
I
think
the
only
legitimate
way
to
try
and
fix
that
is
for
everybody
who
participates
to
either
be
willing
to
read
and
comments
on
drafts,
even
if
they
don't
find
them
interesting
or
to
provide
support
to
the
chairs.
When
the
chairs
say
no
author
x
has
said
17
times
now
that
they
think
the
document
has
consensus,
can
people
please
read
it
and
comment?
S
Z
AD
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
address
john's
point
earlier.
Yes,
things
were
different
25
years
ago,
and
so
was
the
were
the
drafts
that
we're
producing
then,
and
since
then,
we've
got
strong
security
requirements
that
have
to
be
passed
strongest,
iona
requirements,
we've
put
a
whole
set
of
requirements
on
the
qual
that
have
improved
the
quality
of
the
drafts,
but
the
other
thing
that
we've
done-
that's
probably
changed
the
process.
AD
Is
there
a
lot
of
cases
where
you
need
to
get
a
registration
and
we've
made
rfc
required
or
documentation
required,
which
ends
up
being
well?
It's
got
to
be
an
rfc
and
when
we
discuss
things
like
making
internet
drafts
permanent
etcetera
and
when
we
have
that
whole
rfc
process,
one
of
the
things
that
I
don't
think
was
really
clearly
addressed.
AD
B
C
C
AE
AA
Y
C
P
C
C
C
C
AF
Just
apropos
of
some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
in
the
last
round
about
that's
slow
documents,
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot
to
add
to
what
the
list
and
the
other
people
said.
Cluster
238
totally
screwed
up
our
schedule,
because
essentially
45
documents
were
basically
thrown
into
a
bucket
over
the
past
four
years
and
then
dropped
back
into
the
queue
all
at
the
same
time,
which
caused
a
huge
backlog.
AF
In
the
past
couple
of
months,
the
the
production
people
have
been
working
diligently,
they're,
mostly
all
in
off
38
or
better
off
48
or
better,
and
it
seems
likely
that
most
of
them
will
be
published
by
next
month.
Beyond
that,
the
switch
to
the
switch
to
xml
documents
was
very
disruptive.
I
mean
partly.
It
meant
that
that
everybody
had
to
learn
new
tools.
Apparently
it
means
we
now
have
new
permanent
jobs.
AF
We
have
to
do
and
in
particular
in
the
v3
xml
it's
full
of
semantic
tagging,
which
is
great,
but
it
means
that
somebody
actually
has
to
do
the
semantic
tagging
and
if
the
authors
don't
do
it,
which
at
this
point
many
are
not,
the
rpc
has
to
go
through
and
do
the
semantic
tagging
too
and
there's
some
I'm
attempting
to
look
at.
How
can
we
make
our
tools?
But
here
let
me
take
this
off.
How
can
we
make
our
tools
better
and
also
you
know?
AF
Can
we
encourage
people
to
submit
stuff
in
v3
with
the
tags
pretty
much
in
place,
which
will
save
a
fair
amount
of
time
and
on
the
also
on
the
back
end,
I
know
a
lot
of
people
want
to
use
github
for
authority
and
other
stuff.
We
have
an
experiment
doing
that
none
of
us
are.
None
of
us
are
opposed
to
it.
AF
I
would
like
the
rfc
editor,
whoever
it
turns
out
to
be
to
you
know
to
continue
to
have
the
the
realistic
authority
to
say
this
document
needs
to
go
back
and
have
more
work
from
the
working
group
before
it's
ready
to
edit,
just
because
you
know
that
it's
it's
not
well
enough
written
or
any.
You
know,
there's
too
much
obvious
changes
that
it
needs.
So
we
have
plenty
of
work
to
do
and
I
look
forward
to
doing
it
all
with
you.